A fetus has no "right to life" if it is the product of rape.

[plarq]

In my morality ranking, "fetuscide" doesn't count as homicide. I'm not satisfied of abortion, however, since it reduces health status of the female involved.

 

[LuckyAC]

In my morality ranking, "fetuscide" doesn't count as homicide. I'm not satisfied of abortion, however, since it reduces health status of the female involved.

Of course it shouldn't, but if you were to hold the position that it does, as some conservatives do, it would be inconsistent to then believe abortion is OK in cases of rape, which is the inconsistency this thread highlights.

 

[Smidlee]

It's was the "Rape lie" that fooled the Supreme Court to give in to abortion by demand in 1973. We now know the feminism didn't find a rape victim to past their agenda but had a woman to lie in court and say she was raped. In another words the whole abortion issue was and has never been about rape.

 

[bigfatron]

It's was the "Rape lie" that fooled the Supreme Court to give in to abortion by demand in 1973. We now know the feminism didn't find a rape victim to past their agenda but had a woman to lie in court and say she was raped. In another words the whole abortion issue was and has never been about rape.

You've failed to answer the OP's question...

 

[Chieftess]

There's always adoption. It doesn't mean the kid's gonna turn out with a screw loose.

 

[Gibsie]

Further questions for those who are pro-life but would find it acceptable for a foetus to be aborted in case of rape:
1) At what point should the abortion be allowed to happen- as soon as the woman wants it, or only after the alleged rapist has been convicted of rape? What if all charges of rape are dropped or the accused acquited, should abortion be disallowed?
2) If a woman has both consentual sex with a man and is then subsequently raped (by him OR another man), and falls pregnant, and there is no real way to know who the father is or whether it was conceived by rape or consentual sex, should she still be allowed to have an abortion?

 

[Abaddon]

Because the mother will not be able to love the child.

 

[GoodGame]

Bottom line is that it should be a personal, individual decision, regardless if it's made for religion, survival, etc..

So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?

 

[MayNilad Man]

Because the mother will not be able to love the child.

And what about those who would have taken an abortion had it not been illegal?

 

[JohnRM]

Time for a visit to everybody's favorite flamefest. I ask that we please keep it focused and not have yet another debate about abortion in general.

It seems like the majority of people who oppose abortion find it at least acceptable, maybe just tolerable, in cases of rape or when pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Myself, I think abortion is between pregnant people and doctors, not legislators or evangelicals. But that's not the point - the point is that weird line that "pro-lifers" see when rape results in pregnancy. The situations where the abortion is a life-saving procedure aren't too confusing, it's one loss instead of two. The rape line, though, I don't understand. If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?

So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?

It doesn't, in my opinion. Pregnancy due to rape is EXTREMELY -- I stress -- EXTREMELY rare. If you've been raped, you should seek immediate medical care and take preventative measures in order to ensure that you do not become pregnant. You shouldn't just throw your clothes on and go home.

 

[Masquerouge]

I'm with you, Lucy. By saying that it's okay to abort if it was rape or incest, you instantly create a distinction between foetuses. It's the same when some people say that abortion is murder, but these people then do not condone the death penalty for women having abortions (if their country has the death penalty). It instantly makes foetuses different from human beings, since the penalty for killing a foetus is not the same as for killing a human being.

Basically, in order to be consistent with the position that all foetuses are human beings and thus have the exact same rights as human beings, you must:
a. be against ALL abortions, even in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother is endangered (killing a human being to protect another is not allowed unless it's self-defense)
b. be willing to prosecute women and doctors performing abortions for murder - and give them sentences equivalent to that of murdering an adult
c. whem women have a miscarriage or the pregnancy is self-aborted, prosecute them for unvolontary manslaughter - the same way you prosecute people who kill other people by accident.

 

[Shadylookin]

I contend that the pro-life camp isn't so much about trying to save lives, but rather to try to punish fornicating women. Otherwise they would be able to see the hypocrisy in there logic if they were in fact pro-life. The difference is that even Suzzy Q Churchgirl can get raped and pregnancy "is not her fault," but Sally J who consents to sex with boys is just a slut that deserves what she gets.

To me even the language at they use implies that they're trying to place blame and punish rather then supporting life

 

[Princeps]

A fetus resulting from rape is nothing but a parasite.

Bush is pro-life... Is that why he started a war that resulted in thousands of deaths?

 

[warpus]

If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?

The rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus, in this case.

 

[Azale]

Bush is pro-life... Is that why he started a war that resulted in thousands of deaths?

What does that have to do with the topic?


Btw, why is everyone who is pro-life suddenly an evangelical conservative? That's a ridiculous generality some are making.

I myself think that abortion is wrong in all cases, except for when the mothers life is threatened. I think a baby that comes by way of rape or incest could be given up to adopted couples that really want children. I am also pro gay adoptions, and there are plenty of those couples that also want to adopt children.

 

[Mark1031]

I contend that the pro-life camp isn't so much about trying to save lives, but rather to try to punish fornicating women.

I probed the motivation of abortion opponents in a thread along time ago. It was quite clear to me that for the many forcing the mother to carry the child to term was viewed as a punitive measure against the mother for getting pregnant in the first place. In that thread I asked who would be willing to pay more taxes to support the large increase in the number of children born to poor or irresponsible or drug addicted young mothers (the only ones who would be affected if for eg Roe v. Wade was overturned). Of course the newborn is at no fault for the behavior of the mother. I was met with a flood of distain directed at the mother and taxes. Concern for the child was notably lacking. This explains the apparent conflict on rape for many pro-lifers.

 

[LucyDuke]

I see you've moved on from Bill Hicks to Doug Stanhope.

I'll never move on from Bill Hicks. And I haven't paid much attention to Doug Stanhope, this came up in fiftychat and I'm always wondering about this "exception".

It's was the "Rape lie" that fooled the Supreme Court to give in to abortion by demand in 1973. We now know the feminism didn't find a rape victim to past their agenda but had a woman to lie in court and say she was raped. In another words the whole abortion issue was and has never been about rape.

You're right, the abortion issue isn't about rape. But considering that rape can result in a situation relating to abortion, the abortion issue partly is about rape. And, John HSOG, sure, maybe it's rare, but it can and does happen. It's relevant. And as for your (correct) advice to a woman who's been raped, you should consider the emotional trauma caused by rape, and the fact that she may not have her wits about her immediately afterwards.

The rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus, in this case.

"In this case." Okay, so we have a line? A fetus has a right to be uninterrupted under any circumstances, and a woman has no right to her own womb, until there's a situation where this woman engages in intercourse against her will? So a fetus has a legal right not to be terminated only if it's the product of consensual sex, regardless of whatever contraception was prerequisite to consent? A woman who willingly engages in intercourse has no right to an abortion, and a fetus's rights are dictated by circumstance?

 

[Jawz II]

Many people try to make it a black & white issue.
But there are many shades of gray & it is a very difficult issue.

Have you considered a career in politics? You dodge questions prettier than that matrix guy dodged bullets.

It takes talent to talk so much without actually saying anything.

 

[CartesianFart]

Time for a visit to everybody's favorite flamefest. I ask that we please keep it focused and not have yet another debate about abortion in general.

That will be the day.

But that's not the point - the point is that weird line that "pro-lifers" see when rape results in pregnancy. The situations where the abortion is a life-saving procedure aren't too confusing, it's one loss instead of two. The rape line, though, I don't understand. If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?

It is not that the fetus have the rights, it is a judgement of moral standards that fetuses are human beings and should be treated as being so.

So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?

Good question and it is more of a matter of principle and I find that inconsistent to say the least on some anti-abortion camps.Not all of them believe in that, though.

Kinda reminds my of my argument in another thread.(you sometimes scare me of thinking somewhat like me )

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5607164&postcount=49

This is what I said on the question of rape:

Lets say that in some particular cases, a woman was raped and then later discover that she is bearing the child of the rapist; now,after all the trauma of rape,she will not only will suffer the horrible memory of the act, but will have to be constantly be reminded of such act during her pregnancy without any time to recover. The thing is,to me,I find it horrible to prevent life of a unborn child on any circumstances and find it hard to understand the "rape scenario" argument because no-matter what the crime was and how horrible it was to that particular woman, she will suffer from the pain indefinitely; it is still no justification of committing an act of "prevention of life of a human being" or "murder",which the latter can be define vaguely as "denying the right of a human being to live."

So,consequently, the rape victim is acting in the state of vindication and the means to do it is the unborn child as the end of her suffering.

 

[Elrohir]

Time for a visit to everybody's favorite flamefest. I ask that we please keep it focused and not have yet another debate about abortion in general.

It seems like the majority of people who oppose abortion find it at least acceptable, maybe just tolerable, in cases of rape or when pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Myself, I think abortion is between pregnant people and doctors, not legislators or evangelicals. But that's not the point - the point is that weird line that "pro-lifers" see when rape results in pregnancy. The situations where the abortion is a life-saving procedure aren't too confusing, it's one loss instead of two. The rape line, though, I don't understand. If you believe a fetus has rights, how can those rights be contingent upon the circumstances of its conception?

So, anti-abortion folks, what gives? Why does a fetus conceived by rape have any less "right to life" than a fetus conceived by consensual sex?

Great question, and one I've been asking for quite sometime. Sadly, I've yet to hear a good answer.

I dont see why it is right for a woman to be placed upon her the burden of emotional scars from the man who raped her. Everyday for her life (If she gives birth and raises the child) she will be constantly reminded of that event. Not a good thing for a person to be suffering with the pain of the rape.

I'd hypothesize that a woman who carries the child of the rapist and brings it to term would have a higher risk of developing Postpartum depression and other psychological problems.

No, it isn't "right" that she would be put through that. It also isn't "right" that women are ever raped, or any human being is ever hurt in any way. It isn't a matter of what is "right", it is a matter of what is "best". I don't claim banning abortion in all cases but the Mother's life (Including in cases of rape or incest) is a perfect solution. I'm not going to lie, it is definitely going to be bad for the women who are raped and then get pregnant. But I think making it illegal for them to have an abortion is the lesser of two evils, and is preferable to the killing of innocent children who have committed no crime.

By the way, very, very few women who have abortions were raped. In the US, only about 2% of women who have abortions claim they got pregnant as a result of rape. And quite honestly, I'm willing to bet that figure is significantly inflated by women who are ashamed that they got pregnant sleeping around, and so they say they were raped to take some of the shame of getting an abortion away. Women don't generally get pregnant in situations of extreme stress, like when they are raped, so pregnancies from rape really aren't a very big issue. But morally, I still don't understand why a child's parentage matters when determining whether it has a right to live or die.